Integrating AAI into SWA

[Ty Webb]

Hey Ty, I'm Gup. Nice to meet you. I'm gonna go call my stock broker.

Gup

"I want trading reopened right now. Get those brokers back in here! Turn those machines back on!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gekaEzqj5g

 

[ivauir]

Both Pilot groups have been asked to not debate expectations, and I'm going to respect that. Time will tell whose expectations were realistic.

Ty,

This excuse would carry more weight if you hadn't already made so many posts regarding the SLI.

The fact is you have enjoyed baiting current SWA pilots with your predictions and prognostications. Certainly anyone who thinks that AAI will see a 20 year increase in equivalent DOH will be disappointed.

IF you are trying to turn over a new leaf and be reasonable, I can certainly respect that, but it is going to take more than one post for you to be believable.

 

[Uppercrust]

If you want to read something else into it, knock yourselves out, Ty has a thick and hairy hide :laugh:.
.

That's what I heard.:laugh::laugh:

 

[roughneck]

Originally Posted by Ty Webb
Both Pilot groups have been asked to not debate expectations, and I'm going to respect that. Time will tell whose expectations were realistic.

Go back and reread your posts if you haven't already figured it out. Your expectations are unrealistic.

 

[Ty Webb]

Go back and reread your posts if you haven't already figured it out. Your expectations are unrealistic.

Whatever, Chief. It's not up to you or me. What's the point of arguing about it. We'll know how it turns out soon enough.

 

[PapaWoody]

Whatever, Chief. It's not up to you or me. What's the point of arguing about it. We'll know how it turns out soon enough. In the end, I believe you will be more disappointed than I, as your expectations are not in accordance with precedents from the past decade. (blue quote included as it was the original quote that I was rebutting)

The thing about precedents is that they are used to help facilitate rulings in like situations. Since there has not been a situation like this one in the past decade, your reliance on "precedent" to shape your expectations is a little presumptive. The arbitrators (if it gets that far, not good for either side, btw) will definitely reference USA/AWA and DAL/NWA, but the numerous glaring differences in those situations with respect to this one will stand out and influence their decision, none of which will be good for your pipe dream of "relative seniority". But please keep pressing for that type of seniority gain, because "unreasonable positions" is a precedent that was set by the USAir guys, and I'm sure the arbitrators will look upon your unreasonable expectations just as dis-favorably. See ya on the other side.

Fraternally,
PapaWoody

 

[Ty Webb]

PW, I deleted the reference to precedent, but since you brought it up . . . the "unreasonable position" that USAirways' Pilots took was that they wanted DOH instead of relative seniority. That doesn't exactly help your argument.

 

[PapaWoody]

PW, I deleted the reference to precedent, but since you brought it up . . . the "unreasonable position" that USAirways' Pilots took was that they wanted DOH instead of relative seniority. That doesn't exactly help your argument.

As the acquired carrier, with USAir's financial position in shambles, half their seniority list on furlough, and liquidation imminent, DoH that would have put pilots from the acquiring carrier without these problems on the street was the definition of "unreasonable" in that situation. Just like relative seniority with unprecedented gains in career expectations and QoL for AAI would be the definition of "unreasonable" in this situation. Please keep your head in the sand regarding all the differences in this case, it only helps ours.

Fraternally,
PW

 

[dicko]

As the acquired carrier, with their financial position in shambles, half their seniority list on furlough, and liquidation imminent, DoH that would have put pilots from the acquiring carrier without these problems on the street was the definition of "unreasonable" in that situation. Just like relative seniority with unprecedented gains in career expectations and QoL for AAI would be the definition of "unreasonable" in this situation. Please keep your head in the sand regarding all the differences in this case, it only helps ours.

Fraternally,
PW

No Papa. That's your opinion of what's "unreasonable" in this situation. It will only matter if you find yourself voting on the offer your MC presents to you and your colleagues.

Think about what sort of deal the AirTran MC would agree to and then think about whether or not you would think it's fair. Can you imagine a scenario where you and the AirTran MC would agree ? They don't work for you. They work for us.

Your MC does not want arbitration. They also know that they need to bring something to SWAPA members that they will agree to. That's where your opinion of unreasonable makes things interesting.

Here's the rub; Your opinion of what is reasonable may cause more than 50% to vote against your MC's recommendation. That may force Arbitration. Then we will all find out what three arbitrators think is fair or unreasonable.

 

[Cometman]

No Papa. That's your opinion of what's "unreasonable" in this situation. It will only matter if you find yourself voting on the offer your MC presents to you and your colleagues.

Think about what sort of deal the AirTran MC would agree to and then think about whether or not you would think it's fair. Can you imagine a scenario where you and the AirTran MC would agree ? They don't work for you. They work for us.

Your MC does not want arbitration. They also know that they need to bring something to SWAPA members that they will agree to. That's where your opinion of unreasonable makes things interesting.

Here's the rub; Your opinion of what is reasonable may cause more than 50% to vote against your MC's recommendation. That may force Arbitration. Then we will all find out what three arbitrators think is fair or unreasonable.

That sounds correct. However, I think the best deal Air Tran will get either way will be DOH with a ratio intergration like 3:1 or 4:1 or 10:1 etc.
Plus a fence for about 1-2 years. That would be fair seeing that you really are not bring anything to the table. You could not expect more than that.

 

[Ty Webb]

That sounds correct. However, I think the best deal Air Tran will get either way will be DOH with a ratio intergration like 3:1 or 4:1 or 10:1 etc.
Plus a fence for about 1-2 years. That would be fair seeing that you really are not bring anything to the table. You could not expect more than that.

Perhaps you ought to honor your Merger Committee's request to not discuss SLI expectations, even in jest

 

[Cometman]

Perhaps you ought to honor your Merger Committee's request to not discuss SLI expectations, even in jest

It is not my merger committee that will present this. It might be my merger committee that accepts it though.

 

[waveflyer]

Whatever, Chief. It's not up to you or me. What's the point of arguing about it. We'll know how it turns out soon enough.

Speaking of: does anyone know a preliminary timeline for the SLI?
As we know, it can be dragged out for years like at America west, or get done rather quickly ie- delta- and I didn't keep up with that one-

 

[stalker]

Did not want to start a new thread for this question and figured I would find the answer here. Guy I was flying with said he was talking to a couple of Airtran pilots and they were concerned about having to do single engine go arounds on check rides at SWA. Is it true SE GA are not in the PC at AT?

 

[scoreboardII]

On a PC you only do a single engine go at SWA if you need to go around SE. You will do SE go arounds during initial training, but not PT's.